Humanianity: The Religion for Humanity??

[Bill Van Fleet]

Yes, thanks for doing my homework for me. LOL
It does seem to be a form of human secularism, with “religion” tacked on for some reason. Generally I associate religion with worship of one or more deities and dogma that must be accepted on faith rather than from an objective examination of what is actually true.
So I would say the core idea that one should have a rational basis fo one’s beliefs and actions is fine, and I prefer to stick with humanism as the label, although there is more to humanism than just that.
I don’tpersonally see this as a religion, but then I have see others define religion so loosely that stamp collecting and baseball can be classified as religions.

Regarding the issue of the nature of Religion, I would suggest reviewing:
"Religion"

 

[Milton Platt]

Regarding the issue of the nature of Religion, I would suggest reviewing:
"Religion"

Well, I don't think the definition in this article is the definition in common use and commonly understood. But as I said earlier, that does not mean the rest of the philosophy is not logical and sound.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Well, I don't think the definition in this article is the definition in common use and commonly understood. But as I said earlier, that does not mean the rest of the philosophy is not logical and sound.

Yes, you are correct. The definition used on this website is not what is in common use or commonly understood, and the website is clear about that. That is a contribution that this website is making, i.e., that what is commonly used and understood is actually not correct. The definition that is commonly used and understood does not apply to all the things that we actually call "religion." And it is an important error that people are making. (Did you read all of the notes under that heading of "Religion"? Did it all make sense?)

Regarding also the rest of the "philosophy" (website), I am looking for anything that seems not logical or sound. I appreciate your feedback.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Just like computers, religions only get replaced by other religions.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Just like computers, religions only get replaced by other religions.

So, what are your conclusions? Do you agree with me in what follows?

Our religions are and have always been important, but they are still somewhat early in their development, reflecting that their creators, humans, are still quite early in their development compared to how they (we) may become in the future. The following is copied from the Humanianity website:

"Humanianity is currently a movement within all Religion, and within the human species in general, away from authoritarian ethics toward rational ethics, and specifically toward rational ethics based upon the above HUEP. This movement is especially (but not only) an increasing effort to replace some of our natural tendencies to engage in dominance-hierarchy-related (DHR) behaviors, some of which cause tremendous amounts of PSDED, with behaviors consistent with the social contract by everyone for the benefit of everyone. (Thus, Humanian ethics is based rationally upon the above HUEP, NOT upon obediently-maintained beliefs, e.g. theistic, about which there currently can be no wide-spread, increasing agreement, such agreement being increasingly desperately needed by our species with regard to ethics.)

Humanianity can be conceptualized by a metaphoric image that consists of a somewhat conically-shaped mountain, the vertical dimension representing time. Around the bottom of, and at varying distances from the bottom of, the mountain are worm-like entities seemingly crawling up the mountain but actually growing at the top end and atrophying at the bottom end, each of these entities representing a specific religion or religious tradition (or similar cultural activity not necessarily labeled a "religion") that is becoming more "progressive" at the top end and that is giving up out-dated components at the bottom end. As this movement within these entities occurs, and they eventually approach the top of the mountain and therefore come closer to each other, they will tend to merge, and when all of them have done so, they will finally become Humanianity, the Religion for Humanity. Currently, however, Humanianity consists only of the movement, or growth process (toward the top of the mountain), within these entities."

 

[e.r.m.]

My belief is that this is the way for our species to go. It is already happening, I maintain, but needs to happen at a much greater rate, because we are in great (increasing) danger of a species-wide holocaust. Also, we have been having a terrible time ever since our beginning, doing things we don't have to do but do anyway. We have never had anything like an agreed-upon basic ethical philosophy for our species, and have become our most feared predator. So I hope this website will be a contribution to our species.

humanianity.com

But I wonder if the website could be improved in some ways, and would certainly like to know of anything that doesn't seem optimal about it.

Humanianity?
Jim Jones already tried the people's church. No thanks.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Humanianity?
Jim Jones already tried the people's church. No thanks.

I am not understanding. Have you looked at the website? Can you explain your reaction? (It does not seem to me that you understand what Humanianity is.)

 

[e.r.m.]

I am not understanding. Have you looked at the website? Can you explain your reaction? (It does not seem to me that you understand what Humanianity is.)

I didn't before. I did now. They describe it as a religion of/by/and for humans with no deity. Same conclusion. It sounds like dianetics/Christian Science and Jim Jones - People's Church secular kind of stuff. It may not end with the Kool-Aid because Jim Jones was deranged, but it started with the same basic principles.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I didn't before. I did now. They describe it as a religion of/by/and for humans with no deity. Same conclusion. It sounds like dianetics/Christian Science and Jim Jones - People's Church secular kind of stuff. It may not end with the Kool-Aid because Jim Jones was deranged, but it started with the same basic principles.

Could you state those principles, as you understand them. I'm interested in whether indeed the principles are the same.

 

[e.r.m.]

Could you state those principles, as you understand them. I'm interested in whether indeed the principles are the same.

I will look it up and get back to you. Better to give you documentation than my own memory.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I will look it up and get back to you. Better to give you documentation than my own memory.

Great! But could you give me an idea as to what similarity you were talking about when you made your post? What led you to your conclusion? I realize you may change your mind upon further research, but what was you initial impression regarding such similarity in principles? I am especially interested in what you have observed about the Humanianity concept that seems to you to be non-optimal in some way. Thanks!